On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Felipe Contreras < > felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Rémy Oudompheng >> <remyoudompheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On 2012/8/15 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >>> Am 15.08.2012 13:34, schrieb Felipe Contreras: >> >>>>>> 1./ Be a small simple binary >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The systemd main binary is not very large (larger than sysvinit's >> >>>>> /sbin/init, but not by much). >> >>>> >> >>>> But that binary alone is useless, and certainly not *simple*. >> >>> >> >>> /sbin/init from sysvinit alone is useless. What is your point? >> >> >> >> The rest are rather simple scripts (in the case of Arch Linux). >> >> >> >> And you are still ignoring the fact that systemd is anything but >> >> *simple*. How convenient to ignore that argument. >> > >> > Here are my two cents about that: >> > * I don't care about having a faster boot if the sequence is incorrect >> > or buggy (or, worse, leaves me with an unbootable system) >> > * I don't care about having a simpler boot if it doesn't work >> > * I don't care about systemd or bash scripts as long as it is >> > maintained and bug-fixed. >> >> Well, systemd is known to cause problems that render the system unbootable: >> https://www.google.com/search?q=systemd+unbootable >> >> -- >> Felipe Contreras >> > Are you serious? This post amounts to flame-bait at best. Almost all of the > results from that search are about windows. You can google the same thing > with sysvinit or initscripts and get bug reports too, so what is this > supposed to prove? Your settings must be screwing the results: Showing results for system unbootable Search instead for systemd unbootable <- Click here *Sigh* -- Felipe Contreras
